ESPN's Most Disappointing Rookies and Sophomores

[Rondo9]

Why did you cut out the section about Marcus smart ?

Seriously, what enjoyment do you get out of rooting for the C's?

All you do is dog on the Celtics, while cheering on our division rivals.

No I don't.  I celebrate the parts of this team worth celebrating.  I never cheer for any division rivals.

Marcus Smart has been disappointing.  Considering he came into the NBA with labels of being NBA ready and with a floor described as Tyreke Evans... I don't know how you can look at an injury plagued guy averaging 8.5 points, 2.7 assists, 3.5 rebounds on 32%/21%/69% shooting and not say it's anything but disappointing. 

If they left him out of the article, it was an oversight.  That's not to say he hasn't shown signs on the defensive end (though his defense might actually be a bit overrated)... but an article pointing out Andrew Wiggins "disappointing" over someone like Marcus Smart?  That's pretty dumb.  Embiid, Exum and Smart should all be on that list.  Jabari Parker too, probably.  Maybe Smart isn't on there, because he ignored all the injury prone guys.

Great post. Not afraid to speak the truth.. every other player in the celtics roster can be criticized except Marcus, I'll never get that..

Smart has been criticized plenty of times, no one is afraid to offer a crtique to other players.

[LarBrd33]

Smart has helped a team win games. That's more than you can say for the vast majority of the rookies and sophs.

The problem I have with this thread is that it comes across incredibly smug and dismissive of other team's prospects... which is all fine and dandy, but if we're going to parade around and pretend like Andrew Wiggins has somehow been "disappointing" despite the fact he's 20 years old and averaging 21 points, 4 rebounds, 2 assists with 44%/25%/72% shooting... let's not ignore the fact that our own rookie (labelled one of the most NBA ready in the entire draft) has been pretty atrocious offensively.

If I were to tell you that all our tanking in 2013-14 would pay off, because two years into the career of our "prize" he will be struggling to stay on the court with several injuries and averaging a blistering 8.5 points, 3.5 rebounds, 2.7 assists with criminally terrible 32%/21%/69% shooting in 26 minutes off the bench... yet showing some great defensive instincts (though middle of the pack in defensive rating on our team)... you'd jump off the tank wagon.

I still have high hopes for Smart.  I still see him as our best asset (until there is more clarity about the Brooklyn pick)... but man his play has been extremely disappointing. 

And yeah I get that we "win" with him.  I mean... I guess?  We're 7-8 in games he's played this year... 12-9 in games he's missed.   Smart's overrated on this forum.  Is what it is.  But sure, let's all pretend like the Wolves are lamenting being stuck with Andrew Wiggins...

It's cool if we want to make threads dumping on the Julius Randles of the world 30 games into his career, but let's not be hypocritical.  Our sophomore has been a disappointment.  Leaving him off that list was an oversight.  Maybe they didn't deem him relevant enough to put on there.  List is kind of random considering you could put guys like Noah Vonleh on there.  Maybe Marcus Smart isn't disappointing the writer, because the writer had low expectations of Marcus Smart to begin with.  I had high expectations.  I'm disappointed.

[PhoSita]

Smart has helped a team win games. That's more than you can say for the vast majority of the rookies and sophs.

The problem I have with this thread is that it comes across incredibly smug and dismissive of other team's prospects... which is all fine and dandy, but if we're going to parade around and pretend like Andrew Wiggins has somehow been "disappointing" despite the fact he's 20 years old and averaging 21 points, 4 rebounds, 2 assists with 44%/25%/72% shooting... let's not ignore the fact that our own rookie (labelled one of the most NBA ready in the entire draft) has been pretty atrocious offensively.

Did you read the rest of what I posted?


Smart has helped the team win because he came into the league ready to defend at a high level.  Offensively, he's not very good, but he's mostly been able to stay on the floor without hurting too much on that end.  He just doesn't take that many shots or have a big enough role in the offense to hurt the team.


Guys like Wiggins, it's been a mixed bag as far as impact on winning.  That's because those guys for the most part have a much bigger role.  They have been asked to do more.  Wiggins has put up a lot of empty numbers.  He's also had some really big games, and he's shown more than enough to give the impression that he can carry his team to victories on a fairly regular basis sooner rather than later.  In short, he looks like a future star.

Smart is already a nice role player, and he looks like he might one day be an elite role player.  A star, though?  I wouldn't rule it out.  But I'd be kinda surprised, at this point.  But hey, I'm a pessimist.

[LarBrd33]

Smart has helped a team win games. That's more than you can say for the vast majority of the rookies and sophs.

The problem I have with this thread is that it comes across incredibly smug and dismissive of other team's prospects... which is all fine and dandy, but if we're going to parade around and pretend like Andrew Wiggins has somehow been "disappointing" despite the fact he's 20 years old and averaging 21 points, 4 rebounds, 2 assists with 44%/25%/72% shooting... let's not ignore the fact that our own rookie (labelled one of the most NBA ready in the entire draft) has been pretty atrocious offensively.

Did you read the rest of what I posted?


Smart has helped the team win because he came into the league ready to defend at a high level.  Offensively, he's not very good, but he's mostly been able to stay on the floor without hurting too much on that end.  He just doesn't take that many shots or have a big enough role in the offense to hurt the team.


Guys like Wiggins, it's been a mixed bag as far as impact on winning.  That's because those guys for the most part have a much bigger role.  They have been asked to do more.  Wiggins has put up a lot of empty numbers.  He's also had some really big games, and he's shown more than enough to give the impression that he can carry his team to victories on a fairly regular basis sooner rather than later.  In short, he looks like a future star.

Smart is already a nice role player, and he looks like he might one day be an elite role player.  A star, though?  I wouldn't rule it out.  But I'd be kinda surprised, at this point.  But hey, I'm a pessimist.

Yeah I mean... it's a random list.  It's possible the writer just had low expectations of Smart in the first place and can't consider himself "disappointed".  I mean... I'm not "disappointed" that Terry Rozier and RJ Hunter are spending all of their time in D-league... it's exactly what I expected.  But man, I expected Smart to be so much better than he is.   I thought with Rondo gone, Smart would be running the team at this point and averaging at least 15 and 5.   At the least I thought he was capable of Rodney Stuckey numbers.  Hopefully he turns it around.

[PhoSita]

But man, I expected Smart to be so much better than he is.   I thought with Rondo gone, Smart would be running the team at this point and averaging at least 15 and 5.   At the least I thought he was capable of Rodney Stuckey numbers.  Hopefully he turns it around.

I'm with you.  I'm disappointed, too.

Heading into the season, I thought we could hope to see Smart put up something like 12 points, 4 assists, 4 rebounds, 2 steals, and 40 / 33 / 70 shooting splits.  Not exactly an All-Star campaign.  But with his defense, that would be a pretty nice sophomore season.  I saw him on a track to becoming something between George Hill and Kyle Lowry.  That seemed reasonably / modestly optimistic to me.


Right now, I'd be pleased to see Smart have a stretch of 5-10 games putting up stats like that, let alone the whole season.

[KG Living Legend]

Yeah, what happened to Smart man?? He was better than this crap we are seeing now.

 18ppg ic college, but I will say this, it was always a struggle for  him to get his points. He could get to the rim at will in college, and that has been the biggest disappointment so far.

 Looking back his handles were also Overrated.

 LarBrd, I'm not even sure what type of asset he is right now, I think Kelly has more value, Certainly Bradley is more valuable and Thomas too.

 Right now if I'm Ainge I have myself a fairly valuable Combo guard role player that comes off the Bench.

 That's who Smart is on a Title team right now. Not a starter on an eite team.

[TheSundanceKid]

If Super Mario ever becomes surplus to requirements we should go for him. 13 mins a game isn't enough to judge someone in their rookie season...

[MBunge]

Smart has helped a team win games. That's more than you can say for the vast majority of the rookies and sophs.

The problem I have with this thread is that it comes across incredibly smug and dismissive of other team's prospects

The lack of self-awareness demonstrated in that sentence is stunning.  Even if one grants it fairly describes the attitude of other commenters, CELTICS FANS on a CELTICS MESSAGE BOARD being "smug" and "dismissive" about players on other teams is the most normal thing ever.  Someone who claims to be a Celtics fan being "smug" and " dismissive" about Celtics players while being insistently enthusiastic about garbage players on other teams is flatly abnormal.

Mike

[Eddie20]

Smart has helped a team win games. That's more than you can say for the vast majority of the rookies and sophs.

The problem I have with this thread is that it comes across incredibly smug and dismissive of other team's prospects

The lack of self-awareness demonstrated in that sentence is stunning.  Even if one grants it fairly describes the attitude of other commenters, CELTICS FANS on a CELTICS MESSAGE BOARD being "smug" and "dismissive" about players on other teams is the most normal thing ever.  Someone who claims to be a Celtics fan being "smug" and " dismissive" about Celtics players while being insistently enthusiastic about garbage players on other teams is flatly abnormal.

Mike

Not surprised that he has an issue with the list since its full of LB guys (Okafor, Randle, Stauskas, Noel). Kind of funny actually.

[MBunge]

Marcus Smart averages at 21
8.5 points, 2.7 assists, 32%/27%/69%

Kyle Lowery averages at 21
9.6 points, 3.6 assists, 43%/25%/70%

Rodney Stuckey stats at 21
7.6 points, 2.8 assists, 40%/19%/81%

George Hill stats at 22
5.7 points, 1.8 assists, 40%/33%/78%

Mike

[mctyson]

I knew, and had seen, the knocks on Okafor but those numbers are BRUTAL.

I wouldn't put much stock in what the ESPN geek squad thinks.

Hey everyone it's Charles Barkley.

Glad none of our guys on are on the list, but using analytics for everything doesn't always tell the whole story.

The point of the piece is to talk why some young players are disappointing through analytics.  That's all they are trying to do.  Not sure why some are so defensive or not seeing that. 

That stuff is useful.  You can argue with it in different ways and that's fine (I certainly am not an analytics as gospel guy) but the numbers are the numbers.  It'll be interesting to look at them as the years go on.

When I was young and in college, my first major of choice was Math. This was before switching to computer science. Also close to 20 years ago. I feel pretty comfortable that I understand numbers, probability, and analytics better than most posters on here. The one thing I strongly disagree on is the accuracy of NBA analytics. There are just way too many variables in play. I could probably punch holes in most stats being used on these boards.

I agree here.  Some of them are very useful, others are completely messy.  If anyone here is a fan of statistics they should know about multiple comparisons...when you look at something 100 different ways, you are guaranteed to find 5 that fit your point of view.

That's part of the issue with looking at Net Rating when someone is On/Off the floor.  Also the problem with looking at 2-man pairs and Net Rating.  There are so many combos that you don't have specific accuracy to claim one pair is superior to another.

I like the 5-man and 4-man combo Net Ratings (Offense per 100 - Defense per 100) the best.  It evaluates the whole team on the floor.  It is simple.  I would like to see how these play out for those rookies/sophs mentioned in the article, and not just with the On/Off comparison.

[mctyson]

Why did you cut out the section about Marcus smart ?

Seriously, what enjoyment do you get out of rooting for the C's?

All you do is dog on the Celtics, while cheering on our division rivals.

No I don't.  I celebrate the parts of this team worth celebrating.  I never cheer for any division rivals.

Marcus Smart has been disappointing.  Considering he came into the NBA with labels of being NBA ready and with a floor described as Tyreke Evans... I don't know how you can look at an injury plagued guy averaging 8.5 points, 2.7 assists, 3.5 rebounds on 32%/21%/69% shooting and not say it's anything but disappointing. 

If they left him out of the article, it was an oversight.  That's not to say he hasn't shown signs on the defensive end (though his defense might actually be a bit overrated)... but an article pointing out Andrew Wiggins "disappointing" over someone like Marcus Smart?  That's pretty dumb.  Embiid, Exum and Smart should all be on that list.  Jabari Parker too, probably.  Maybe Smart isn't on there, because he ignored all the injury prone guys.

Add Embiid to the other three Philly disappointments if you must.

Personally, no rookie or sophomore has disappointed me more than Marcus Smart... so I take offense to him being left off the list.  Freakin Boston always getting shafted in the press.

I am not going to defend how Smart has played offensively thus far in his career, but we all kind of knew that was his weakness.  He was never billed as a true PG or a good shooter, even though he was picked #6 in the draft.

You can argue about whether he was worth that pick or not.  I just don't think it is fair to say he has been a disappointment, because it is very possible that if he continues to play defense the way he has played this year - and he stays on the court - he will be on an All-NBA Defensive Team.

There are two legitimate criticisms of Smart:  shooting % and injuries.  But he has been everything and more on defense and for that he is not a disappointment.

[Celtics4ever]

The problem I have with this thread is that it comes across incredibly smug and dismissive of other team's prospects... which is all fine and dandy, but if we're going to parade around and pretend like Andrew Wiggins has somehow been "disappointing" despite the fact he's 20 years old and averaging 21 points, 4 rebounds, 2 assists with 44%/25%/72% shooting... let's not ignore the fact that our own rookie (labelled one of the most NBA ready in the entire draft) has been pretty atrocious offensively.

If I were to tell you that all our tanking in 2013-14 would pay off, because two years into the career of our "prize" he will be struggling to stay on the court with several injuries and averaging a blistering 8.5 points, 3.5 rebounds, 2.7 assists with criminally terrible 32%/21%/69% shooting in 26 minutes off the bench... yet showing some great defensive instincts (though middle of the pack in defensive rating on our team)... you'd jump off the tank wagon.

I still have high hopes for Smart.  I still see him as our best asset (until there is more clarity about the Brooklyn pick)... but man his play has been extremely disappointing.

Truth hurts, Smart does help us win games sometimes, he can defend but his offensive game is all over the place and lacking.   He is young so I still hold hope.  But there is plenty to be concerned about, lack of ability to drive, his playstyle which gets him hurt,  and his jumpshot  are what concerns me the most.

[fairweatherfan]

They essentially explain their issue with Okafor, right here:

Philly has been outscored by a staggering 19.2 points per 100 possessions with Okafor on the court. If any team played an entire season that poorly, it would shatter the all-time record for futility.

Okafor has little talent around him. The talent he does have, he makes even worse with his horrific defense and black-hole mentality. The problem isn't that he hasn't elevated the Sixers, the problem is that he's made them worse at times.

My problem with this is holding a rookie to that standard where you expect them to make their team better regardless of the talent around them, or the composition of that talent.

I'm pretty neutral on Okafor but I think the counterargument is that they're not expecting him to make his team better, just not worse to the point that their production is historically bad when he's out there.

Ever think that the reason the Sixers are so much better without Okafor on the floor might have something to do with just how terribly they are built to play a halfcourt game with Okafor posting up on one end and functioning as the last line of defense on the other?

This is a fair point though.  Philly is such a dumpster fire that it's hard to have a level playing field when comparing their guys' numbers to others.  However, it's not a great sign that most of their top-10 picks are unable to pull even reasonably below-average numbers out of that vortex of suck.

[hwangjini_1]

Marcus Smart averages at 21
8.5 points, 2.7 assists, 32%/27%/69%

Kyle Lowery averages at 21
9.6 points, 3.6 assists, 43%/25%/70%

Rodney Stuckey stats at 21
7.6 points, 2.8 assists, 40%/19%/81%

George Hill stats at 22
5.7 points, 1.8 assists, 40%/33%/78%

Mike

i'm disappointed in all of them.